cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tagunov Anthony" <atagu...@nnt.ru>
Subject Re: [RT] from linkmaps to flowmaps
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:57:45 GMT
Hello, All!

On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 13:13:41 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>Well, since links provide navigation, thus flow, many don't even see the
>difference.
Stefano, please excuse me for being so dumb: the difference between 
a LINK and a FLOW? LINK is general relationship and FLOW is spcific,
navigation relationship?

>So, what is a flowmap?
<snip/>
>So, let's see, let's take something like slashdot.org:
>         identification
>               ^
>               |
>               v
> (enter) ---> home ---> (exit)
>             ...

Idea: they've got a rether complicated flow models at UML
(if i understand the subject correctly they are closely
connected with state machine models)
Maybe it would be worth looking into their OMG model
of UML (if i understand correctly they have a meta meta
model to desribe meta models. in this language
UML is described as a metamodel. Following this
meta model we can build models of applications.
This metamodel describes, in my understanding, how
application model can be put into data structures rather
how this should be visually presented by a CASE tool.)
The models expressed in UML are, as far as i know
exportable in some unified format for interexchange
between CASE tools. This format is XML language,
by the way!

So, maybe we could take OMG UML metamodel for
describing state machines and workflow
(their statechart and workflow diagrams),
take a subset of it (we naturally do not need
all!) and make use of it in one of the 
following two ways:
1) make our own xml language for building sitemaps
    that would be different from the UML interexchange
    format (smth inspired by the sitemaps), BUT
    THAT WOULD EXPRESS THE OMG UML
    SUBSET SEMANTICS actually, only in a different
    syntax.
2) explore if we could use the OMG UML interexchage
    format directly

In the  case 2) CASE modelling instruments could
be applied to designing flowmaps direclty,
In the  case 1) our flowmaps could probably
be convertable either to UML interexchange format
to be viewed by CASE tools, but maybe also back

And even we find OMG UML model directly unusable
we still could find in their models ground to inspire
building of our flowmaps.

Pro-s: of this approach: 
       --it is better to use what already has 
       been developed for this purpose
       --hypothetical ability to use CASE tools
Conra-s:
       --much effort is needed to get to a clear
       understanding of OMG models and how
       much applicable they are

Best regards, Tagunov Anthony



Mime
View raw message